Thursday, September 14, 2006

Did I say `yes'? I meant `no.'

Three Chicago aldermen who
supported the so-called "big box" wage ordinance when it came before the City Council July 26 crossed over Wednesday and backed Mayor Richard Daley's veto of that ordinance: Ald. George Cardenas (12th), Ald. Shirley Coleman (16th) and
Ald. Danny Solis (25th).

The attempt to override Daley's veto fell three votes short.

Each flipper claims to have seen the light and had a principled, pragmatic change of mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you believe them?

Posted at 06:22:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Flipper? I thought liberals valued the ability to change ones mind? I don't recall you calling Kerry a "flipper" for his I voted for it but then I voted against it history. Is Hillary a flipper too?

By the way, your headline "Did I say 'Yes', I meant 'No'" could apply to all the democratic presidential nominees wrt their vote on the war don't you think?

Yes, I believe them. This underscores why I have always said there is not a salary that could convince me to move within the Chicago city limits. The alderman complain about losing business to the suburbs. Maybe they should watch coverage of there own meetings. Romper Room often had more maturity and dignity than any one of the children present at these meetings. I could name a few of teh actors that attend these meetings, specifically ones that tend to dress like Circus performers in their elaborate outfits, but it is not worth the time. I think it IS time for the Chicago City Day Care, I mean Council, begin to realize that they may be as responsible for business leaving Chicago as any BIG BOX. Maybe they can all keep their toys in the BIG BOX now.

Their votes should not be seen as a shock. I feel that it was a premediated maneuver. In order to appease their constituency they were going to vote against the mayor but in reality due to how "supportive" the mayor has been with cardenas and solis during election time with the HDO, they did not want to risk further elections. No shock here unless you didn't know who things work.

Daley didn't need to twist the arm of wealthy restauranteur Tom Tunney, who was with his benefactor from jump street. Tunney and his gang of A-list gays love Daley, and why not? They are all on his side of the class and racial divide.

They glory in the bucks Daley and his corporate heavies have showered on the new gay community center, the roof garden of which they will namne for da Mare. Never mind the gay youth that are harassed and beaten by Daley's cops on the dark streets below. Never mind the Jon Burge torture ring that operated as an open secret during Daley's reign as States Attorney.

Besides, does Tunney want to pay those waiters in his restaurants a living wage?

Maybe the question should be as to why all the other alderman voted for it, could it possibly be pressure from the unions?? Why is it always about pressure from big business. Unions have such a stronghold in this city it is sickening, it costs all more money, and in some cases, based on the shady way some of these union contractors do business, our lives are endangered to.

I have an idea to cut expenses in Chicago. Get rid of all the aldermen and their staffs. Truly, what good are they? They worry more about what we are eating than creating jobs for the citizens in Chicago.

Remember that the Ald. Shiller of the 46th ward sat on her hands on this issue - NO VOTE. She claims to fight for the low wage and low income person, but she did not take a stand either way. I have respect for the Aldermen who took a stand, even if they flipped. Ald Shiller has a Target planned for her ward, so she should vote for big-box to give her ward needed jobs. Instead she supported noone. Flip or no flip, they are supporting someone.

It will be good for all citizens of Chicago (except greedy union leaders) to allow capitalism to triumph over a blatant attempt at socialism. No business needs to be told how much to pay their workers. If you want to make more money, you'll have to aspire to something more than running a register at Wal Mart.

Christiana's assessment is pretty much right on target. The only thing is Ald. Coleman maybe should have gotten more assurance that Wal-Mart will actually come. Then again, whatever happened to stick-to-it ism. I believe that these stores are going to continue to build in the city regardless. They have no where else to go. As far as Cardenas and Solis, they rely too heavily on Daley's HDO to take a stand. Not exactly what you would call representatives of the people, now are they?

Big box ordinance in Chicago, Big Box goes to Suburbs, Sales Tax Revenue goes to Suburbs, yeah for us in the Suburbs. Living Wage legislation needs to start on a grand scale, state and federal levels, doing it on a City scale will only push the big box stores out of the city, then the folks that would have worked there now need to commute to the job that could have been down the block from their home.

I have never heard such ludicrous garbage in my life!
The big box stores need Chicago more than Chicago needs the big boxes!
They are all desperate for growth, but have for the most part ignored the big older cities. They prefer to build on farmland & old manufacturing sites that have been forced to China by Wal-Mart's obscene demands for ever lower prices!
The fact is, if the big box law had stood up, Wal-Mart & Target would be building here in a couple of years anyway. A study recently showed that Target considers itself massively understored in Chicago. City residents won't travel more than 5 miles to shop under normal circumstances.
Plus, remember this: Daley prevented an IKEA from opening on Elston Ave a couple of years ago, claiming traffic problems.
What traffic problems? All he would have to do is put a whole bunch of his vaunted Traffic Management Authority traffic aides out there. HaHa
This city's traffic problems are caused by unco-ordinated lights & a general lack of sensor actuated left turn signals.
The following is an actual quote from a City of Chicago traffic engineer: "We prefer traffic to go straight". I also guess that that guy's favorite movie was & is "Tron". I believe that quote was in the Trib or the Reader.
EZ, please check the Trib archive if possible.

It's too bad the the minimum wage is such joke, prompting this ordinence in the first place. We can say that people should stirve for something better and they will achieve. But that isn't true. A hungry labor pool, one that is constantly told that they will have a better life if they only try harder, is the perfect situation for employers. The best part is that they never really have to promote their staff to any sort of a real salary since keeping their employees hungry causes increased productivity.

In states counties and cities that have living wage laws the retailers have shown INCREASED profits. So why don't they embrace this? That I'll never understand.

Target already has several stores in Chicago. Wal-Mart must enter Chicago - it has nowhere else to go. It has already saturated the suburbs and exurbs and every other urb. Its expansion into Germany is largely a failure. If Wal-Mart would have honored its threat to not open stores in Chicago, it would have lost money: There are dollars in Chicago that Wal-Mart would have lost even if it did have to pay its workers $10 an hour. The wage increase would have affected Wal-Mart's bottom line by a very small number.

While it is without question that there are wards in the City of Chicago that will benefit from the economic development a Wal-Mart store will offer, the alderman who capitulated to Daley also capitulated to threats from the retailers. The fact is, the U.S. is losing its manufacturing base due to globalization. And as long as a college education is cost-prohibitive for the majority of people in this country (and this city), retail jobs may be the only hope for many of us. Something needs to change, whether its the way retailers like Wal-Mart do business or the opportunities that the U.S. offers its citizens to better their lives.

Big Box was doomed from the start. It is both unconstitutional on its face(equal protection laws ... Walgreens, Jewel, Dominick's, CVS all exempt???) and unrealistic (jobs are needed on the South & West Side baaadly).

What was truly interesting yesterday was watching and listening to some of the Black Alderman who claimed to be the most impacted, of all, by the Ordinance. Keep in mind that the Black Alderman run there Wards as if they are feudal lords. He's a quick break down:

Coleman (16) has a much bigger box of problems on her desk in an election season. She is probably the most vulnerable of all of the Black Alderman (well Troutman (20) is probably the most vulnerable). As such, the good Reverend needs the Mayor now more than ever before. Defy the King when your subjects are potentially in a revolt? Think not. She would have been a fool not to "flip." She says that Wal-Mart has plans to come to her Ward. Understandable, but (1) when are they coming to Englewood; and (2) have they made a commitment in WRITING or is it just ... talk. I think the latter is true. She as to fear Daley more than the Unions.

Brookins (21) is no dummy. The most theatric of all (he's a lawyer). He was the champion from the beginning and was targeted by the lady Alderman in opposition (mainly Lyle (6)). He simply picked the right side ... early.

Lyle (6) is the real flipper. There is one Target on the South Side of Chicago. Guess where it is ... you guessed it ... the 6th Ward. If she feels so strongly about the issue, then why doesn't she start cleaning up her own backyard before she starts snooping around in others who simply want a chance. She has to be banking on the Unions to help her out. She is destined for a run-off (as usual) and will need the Unions big time.

Hairston (5) made clear that the jobs are needed in the Black community ... period. But, at the same, Wal-mart is not welcome in the 5th Ward.

Preckwinkle (4) did what she does best ... curry up to the White northside liberals (U of C is in her ward so she knows the drill) ... then "flip" back and say that she is concerned that the Black Alderman are at each others throats. Hogwash. She does not need the King ... she has her own King to answer to ... The U of C! Plus, she's in with the Unions. She's a lock.

Troutman (20) was the funniest of them all. She knows she is on her way out! She claims to have held "community meetings" etc. on the issue. Friends in 20, however, say that she is never in her office (just call for yourself and check), and have never heard of any community meetings on Big Box. She ranted and raved in Chambers yesterday welcoming all challengers saying she is "ready for them." They had better watch out becuase she probably does not have something waiting for them. Expect a gang war to break out in 20 during the election. Expect Troutman to use her gang connects to shut (or shoot) down any opposition. The Mayor can help also. But, if Leon Finney is not in support of her then neither will be the Mayor. Expect bloodshed.

Tillman (3) owns all of the land in her ward anyway. Why wouldn't she want a Big Box.

I am shocked, SHOCKED!, to find out that the Chicago City Council is populated by spinless, unprincipled, self-serving politicians.

Let's address the real demands that should be placed on WalMart. Let's tell them that we don't want them here if they are going to create economic activity and skim the cream off to send back to Bentonville, Arkansas.

They shouldn't embarass themselves by saying that they want to be the savior of blighted urban areas. They have simply saturated every rural and suburban community in America...big cities are the only markets left for them to grow.

They see an economic void that they can exploit. That's fine. That's business.

But they can't simply take consumer dollars out of Chicago and hire a part-time work force that will have to rely on food stamps and County health care.

Benefits are the key issue, especially when the bulk of bankruptcies happen because families are hit with massive bills after a health emergency.

Let's talk about the largest retail company in the world and benefits.

I'll pay an extra ten cents for a box of cereal, or an extra dollar for a shirt if I know that a company's employees are well cared for. Some people think that the only thing that matters is getting the lowest price. But I expect elected officials to look at the larger picture.

And, lastly, instead of a referendum on foie gras...FOIE GRAS!!!???!!!???...how about a referendum that gives citizens the authority to vote on pay raises for aldermen?

Does anybody really believe that these people are worth $100, 000 apiece?

The average WalMart worker makes about $17K a year. Let's more than double that and make the salary for aldermen $35K a year with whatever benefits the aldermen currently get.

Wow, I wouldn't expect such a straight forward question from Eric to produce such inane comments!

Sorry if that's rude, but rehearsing half-arguments and repeating truthy "facts" (factiness?) really misses what the veto and flip-flops are all about.

The flip-floppers sold out or were already sell-outs. Simple as that.

Now, the Mayor may believe some of what he said. His brother was a big DLC-er and backer of free trade policies. Theses guys see businessmen as our saviors. But if this was about principle, and had he not been sure of sustaining his veto, how would Daley have explained letting this go?

Coleman said why she changed her mind. Shiller had two years to voice her disagreements with the ordinance. Solis and Cardenas have developers to respond to, and that's the extent of their ability to plan economic development for their neighborhoods.

The principle underlying the Big Box ordinance is not a living wage. If it was, then it would be projected for the whole city and not just retailers meeting a certain criteria. No, the underlying principle is "ability to pay".

These businesses have been targeted to pay more simply because they can! One realizes how ludicrous the idea is if you extend it beyond these few retailers and to all other businesses and consumer transactions. It's a horrible subversion of the free market and an underpinning of centrally-planned economies (e.g., the Soviet bloc and China). In addition, it treats potential job seekers like ignorant children who aren't capable of deciding what's in their best interest. If the Big Box stores' beginning wages are too low to attract suitable applicants, the market will force them to raise their wages naturally.

The retail world and work is the ENTRY level into the business world. You learn the basics by doing the same thing over and over again and using your new skills to move up into better paying jobs. We're talking about skills like showing up to work on time, dressing appropriately for work, stocking shelves, mopping the floor, cashiering and doing a little customer service. That's where I started, at the bottom rung.

The reason people shop at Wally World and such is to get the LOWEST price possible, shoppers "vote" every day by shopping there. If all of these concerned liberals want to pay people more, they should only shop those places that pay people more.

What part of $7.00/hour is more than $0.00/hour do people not understand? Sancho said, ... they can't simply take consumer dollars out of Chicago and hire a part-time work force that will have to rely on food stamps and County health care." This work force is ALREADY relying on food stamps and County health care because they are making $0.00/hour now and have NO health insurance. Walmart has a health insurance plan for their employees. As a matter of fact, until a member of my family started working at Walmart, they had never had health insurance, not even for the children.

When I go to Dominick's or Jewel and see a box of cereal priced at more than $4.00 and go to Walmart and see the same box at less than $2.00, where do you think I'll buy that cereal. I don't know what employees of Dominick's and Jewel are paid (cashiers and baggers for instance), but I would venture a guess that it isn't that much either, yet the stores are charging double what Walmart (and Target, too) charges. So when do we start on the Dominick's, Jewel, and other stores that aren't paying their people a "living wage"?

One truth in a lot of the comments posted thusfar -- City Hall does need cleaning out. Maybe the people of Chicago will remember all of the lunacy of the past few years when it comes time to vote again. And, maybe they'll go to the polls and vote their memories!

The suggestion that the suburban market is saturated with stores like Wal-Mart has to be coming from a Chicago resident who can't see beyond his little pond.

The south and southwest suburbs are exploding with growth while people push even further beyond the notion of what constitutes a suburb of Chicago. And as property taxes increase, we welcome any light or retail business that can temper property taxes.

It never had to be a choice between the stores and the jobs. The two are not mutually exclusive. The stores could have come and paid a decent wage. It also was not unions against minorities...altho unions have a history of not being so friendly to minorities. It was union against Wal-Mart, who is notoriously anti-union. That's why the ordinance is just now being pushed. For years Wal-Mart has been kept out. Now they've made inroads. And, Daley put on a good show about his concern for blacks and how the unions are discriminating against progress for black communities. Take a drive thru Englewood or West Garfield, like I do frequently. If Daley was that concerned, those areas would not be as neglected as they are.

As for the wishy washy aldermen, I can see and understand the pros and cons in regards to passing the big box ordinance. I can understand it being a hard decision for Chicago city council members. But what I don’t understand is how and why any council member would vote differently in September than they did in July. No new facts have been revealed. No new action, promise or threat has been disclosed...at least none that should not have been anticipated by any one of our 50 wise ward warriors. They even knew, in July, that Daley opposed the ordinance. The question now becomes “Were their brains burned out then or are their back bones buckling now (in September)?” Wow, a two-month rebellion! That’s the stuff that made America the great democracy that it is. Patrick Henry would be proud. All I’ve got to say is "Ride on King Daley."

Chicago lost this fight...all of us. The aldermen laid down. Daley is not accountable to anyone except big business and special interest....not the citizen's of Chicago.

When I go to Dominick's or Jewel and see a box of cereal priced at more than $4.00 and go to Walmart and see the same box at less than $2.00, where do you think I'll buy that cereal. I don't know what employees of Dominick's and Jewel are paid (cashiers and baggers for instance), but I would venture a guess that it isn't that much either, yet the stores are charging double what Walmart (and Target, too) charges.

Posted by: Gladys | Sep 14, 2006 11:58:20 AM

Gladys:

Please go shopping tonight at Wal-Mart and buy a box of cereal. Then go to both Jewel and Dominick's and purchase the exact same box of cereal. Send all receipts to Mr. Zorn and request that he post photocopies of them on his blog. I shop at all 3 stores all the time, and I've NEVER seen a box of cereal at Wal-Mart 1/2 the price compared to Jewel and Dominick's. I want to see proof of your allegation.

SamIAm: EZ wasn't questioning their right to change their votes -- he was questioning their reasons (whether they honestly changed their minds). Also, the Kerry comparison is invalid. Kerry changed his vote when a measure that he didn't support was attached to a bill. But the aldermen were voting on the exact same ordinance both times.

"This work force is ALREADY relying on food stamps and County health care because they are making $0.00/hour now and have NO health insurance."

Right, exactly! So my expectation is that as people move into the work force they will move off the dole. If the jobs at WalMart aren't enabling people to move off the dole, then I say those are, in effect, bad jobs for Chicago. The low prices at WM may be artificially low...taxpayers are subsidizing those low prices.

My main point is that this is a much more complex argument than the one that seems to have taken place in the City Council. My secondary point is that broken neighborhoods need more than a WalMart or Target "silver bullet". They need a broad range of shops and economic opportunities. Choosing between a crappy wage at WalMart and no salary at all isn't a choice. I'm no expert, but I think the overall effect of a WalMart (in particular) is to depress or suppress a broad range of economic development. I say this because I've seen the historic downtown areas in small towns in rural America that have been sucked dry by the WalMart on the fringe of town. The other thing is that WalMart wants to sell everything to everybody. I remember needing to get a key cut in a small southern town and, of course, there was no independent locksmith. I had to go to the big blue box.

To Bob -

"The suggestion that the suburban market is saturated with stores like Wal-Mart has to be coming from a Chicago resident who can't see beyond his little pond. The south and southwest suburbs are exploding with growth while people push even further beyond the notion of what constitutes a suburb of Chicago. And as property taxes increase, we welcome any light or retail business that can temper property taxes. Chicago means shoplifting, burglaries, petty theft and a questionable workforce. And now, it means moronic aldermen too."

Those are amusing comments. Yes, the suburbs around Chicago are exploding with growth...we city folk call that suburban sprawl. Another blob of McMansions in a cornfield with a strip mall or mini mall nearby. That's not my vision of happiness, but if it works for you, godspeed!

But to the point of WalMarts, a map of their location will show that they ring the city of Chicago and, thus my comment that the city, with three million residents, is the last big area for them to expand. I'm saying that Chicago's economic needs are specific and that the City Council should be elevating the discussion, airing out all of the complex issue involved. Tax incentives, benefits, overall development, etc.

As to who needs who, like it or not the city mice and the country mice need each other.

According to a recent CNN report, Wal-Mart pays on average nationwide $9.69 an hour.

You know what that means? You start at $7.00 and if you show up on time and do your job, YOU GET A RAISE.

That's for the big-boxes to decide, not the city council.

Posted by: John | Sep 14, 2006 12:50:38 PM

THANK YOU JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People with little or no job experience have gotten the notion that they deserve executive type pay at Walmart or other retail establishment. As many in this and other blogs have said, Walmart is ENTRY LEVEL!!! If people still had a work ethic in this day and age, more people would understand this. But I hear kids AND adults say "stocking shelves at Walmart is beneath me". Well, the baby boomers grandparents had a word for stocking shelves at Walmart. OPPORTUNITY!!!!!!!! If you want to advance up the ladder in a job, you have to start at the bottom, and WORK YOUR WAY UP THE LADDER. You are not ENTITLED to $10.00/hr, or $.01 per hour. You need to EARN it. To all of the protesters whining about a living wage, ask some teachers or other professionals in teaching and human services what they think. Our agency has Direct Care staff working with Develpomentally Disables adults starting at $9.57/hr.
After being unemployed for 6 months last year, ANY job is better than leeching off the system because you won't work at Walmart because you think you deserve executive pay at entry level positions.

Rob S:
I am amazed that you think $9.69 an hour is executive pay!
Executive pay is closer to $9.69 PER MINUTE!
Which come to $581.40 PER HOUR!
Which is $4,651.20 PER WEEK [40 hours]
Which totals $242,862.40 PER YEAR
And that doesn't include all the benefits such as healthcare, pension, bonuses, car allowance, and whatever else the execs manage to scam for themselves!
And of course, the really high ranking execs get 10 times that plus huge buyouts when they get fired for incompetence.
See local examlpes such as Betsy Holden of Kraft who given given $25 million to go away by the guy who dumped her, Roger Deromedi, who then got dumped weeks ago & got a similar package by Irene Rosenfeld, and so on and so on............

It played out like a scam, it probably was all along. If the stores do not want to pay a decent wage, then they can go back to the suburbs and that is the end of that. On the other hand it is not like the stores that already inhabit the South and West sides are owned or operated by people who live in either of those communities, so either way the people in those communities are going to continue to not have anything anyway, well at least the ones who already don't have anything.

Living in the 6th Ward where Target is trucking the dough outta the hood, I have to admit it is pretty nice to have a Target here. It was nice to have Woolworth and Polk Brothers as well, come to think of it, it was nice to have National's there, when it was there and the High Low was pretty good too.

But the truth is that Target, while they are making money hand over fist, is not in the black community for us (the black people), they see the gentrification coming, and they want to be established before it gets here. But it is a gamble, they could be known as 'the black Target' (you know like 'the black Sears' on 79th near Stony Island, or 'the black Jewel' or 'the black Dominick's') and it will only be a short matter of time before they wind up like National's and Woolworths (or even worse, Goldblatt's or Gateleys).

All the posturing and noise making by the mayor, well it was a nice show. It would have been nicer to see if the stores would have really had big enough boxes to really walk off leaving those communities with their pockets full and no place to go. Yeah that would have been fun, but I guess we will never know since they can so easily afford a few alderbugs and a mayor.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.